Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lockhart

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 10, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney, Tenth, Young

84 Ohio St. 3d 7; 701 N.E.2d 686

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re: Elise Marybeth Lamartina (La. 2017)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Niles (Ohio 2010)
Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Lockhart (Ohio 2002)
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Moore (Ohio 2015)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart (Ohio 2002)
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Lockhart (Ohio 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent’s shoplifting violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fidler (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 396, 700 N.E.2d 323.

*9In view of respondent’s attempts to rehabilitate herself, we adopt the recommendation of the panel. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year of that suspension stayed. Respondent will be placed on probation, and her reinstatement will be conditioned on her payment of all fines and other costs related to her actions. Upon completion of the suspension, she shall submit to a complete psychiatric examination by a physician of relator’s choice to determine whether she is emotionally fit to resume the practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Young, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, . JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents. John C. Young, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.

Dissenting Opinion

Cook, J.,

dissenting. In accordance with the recommendation of the board, I would indefinitely suspend the respondent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.